SUNIT KAKKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition made under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the impugned order dated 15th September,2002 and 14th October,2005.

(2.) Former order relates to taking cognizance against the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 406,420, 120 IPC and sending it for trial as provided under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and later orders relate to issuance of warrants of arrest against the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner ans also the learned prosecutor and the complainant/respondent in person. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that cognizance as taken by the Metropolitan Magistrate was bad in law as the complaint was not filed before the appropriate forum. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the complaint was required to be filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who in turn was to assign the same to the Magistrate concerned. In the instant case the complaint was filed in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate and as such according to learned counsel for the petitioner the cognizance as taken by the Metropolitan Magistrate is vitiated under law and liable to be quashed. What else is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Metropolitan Magistrate erroneously issued warrants of arrest in the first instance it being contrary to the provisions of Section 204 (1)(a).

(3.) He urged that scheme of the Act provides that at the first instance summons should be issued against the accused and if his presence is not secured and if the accused deliberately evade service of summons then in that event warrants may be issued. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submit that there was no bar from issuing warrants of arrest at the first instance as according to him under the provisions of Section 204(1)(b) the Magistrate is authorised to issue warrants straightaway instead of summons in warrant case.